Museum-Commercial Gallery-Museum: John Elderfield’s Head-Spinning Revolving Door

In my original post on John Elderfield‘s new Princeton University appointment, I stated that “the conflict-of-interest potential” inherent in simultaneously working as a museum curator at Princeton and as a commercial gallery consultant for Gagosian “seems obvious.”

Apparently, though, it isn’t obvious to Elderfield or to James Steward, director of the Princeton University Art Museum (PUAM), where the Museum of Modern Art’s curator emeritus is about to become “distinguished curator and lecturer” while still working as a consultant for Gagosian.

Let me elucidate, in this post, the conflict-of-interest potential that seems to me self-evident.

In his recent comments to me, Elderfield maintained that the “strict separation” between his work for Gagosian and his duties at Princeton “will avoid conflicts of interest, potential and perceived.” In follow-up questions that I sent to Elderfield and Steward on Monday (and re-sent on Tuesday), I sought further details on just what that “strict separation” would entail and on just how “potential and perceived” conflicts of interest would, in fact, be avoided.

I’ve gotten no response yet from Elderfield to my three emails. (I’ll update if I hear from him.)

The following general response from PUAM didn’t answer my specific questions. This came from Erin Firestone, PUAM’s manager of marketing and public relations:

In reference to your questions about John Elderfield’s appointment at the Princeton University Art Museum, we stand by the answers that were provided by John and posted to your blog last week [my link, not his].

As a museum in a leadership university setting, we believe strongly that we teach through our professional behavior just as we do through the content of our courses, exhibitions, and other activities. We are thus committed to the highest standards in scholarship, collecting, and ethical conduct. Equally, we feel that teaching museums need to reflect the continuing evolution of scholarship and of the wider art world, and thus to expose our students to the complex realities of today’s art world.

Ultimately, the proof resides in the work, and we invite the participation of our students, faculty, the scholarly and artistic communities, and local, regional, national, and international audiences in that work.

As I explained in my emails inviting responses from both Elderfield and Steward, I believe that “potential and perceived” (or even actual) conflicts of interest are likely to crop up whenever the artists or movements explored by Elderfield at one venue overlap with what is shown at the other.

Through his dual allegiances, John imparts his scholarly luster and now his Ivy League patina to the mega-dealer’s market maneuvers, while making the nonprofit PUAM seem like a Gagosian outpost if it shows that gallery’s artists, borrows art “Courtesy of Gagosian Gallery,” or accepts donations of art or funds from the gallery.

It’s even possible that competing dealers may decline to cooperate with a curator deemed to be in Gagosian’s orbit, further compromising PUAM’s activities. Even if he approaches his work with the utmost professionalism and integrity that we have come to expect from him, the “strict separation” between Elderfield’s dual identities seems, to me, impossible to convincingly achieve.

I asked the Association of Art Museum Curators’ executive director, Judith Pineiro, how Elderfield’s divided loyalties would stack up against AAMC’s professional guidelines, which include a strong recommendation (but not a stipulation) that curators “not…be employed by dealers.” (The guidelines also state that curators considering outside employment “may want to obtain written approval from their director or department head.”)

Here’s Pineiro’s noncommittal response to my query about Elderfield:

We would assume that Princeton University and the Princeton University Art Museum in hiring John Elderfield would have resolved to the institutions’ satisfaction any conflict of interest regarding the issue you have inquired about.

My request to PUAM for details on its own policy regarding outside employment went unanswered. But the Museum of Modern Art, Elderfield’s former museum (pre-Gagosian), which had subjected him to its mandatory age-65 retirement policy, promptly sent me, upon request, its entire 17-page Code of Conduct, which states this on p. 5:

Outside employment should not be accepted if it creates a conflict of interest or the appearance of a conflict of interest. In particular, conflicts may be presented by employment offered by art dealers [emphasis added].

Some eyebrows (including mine) were raised when Elderfield curated a late de Kooning show at Gagosian in 2013, keying off of the final show he curated at MoMA before crossing the museum/gallery divide—its majesterial 2011-12 de Kooning retrospective, which to me (and perhaps to others) unconvincingly touted the artist’s late paintings. (Elderfield announced his new Gagosian gig in March 2012, two months after the close of MoMA’s show.)

Curator-dealer cooperation is a time-honored practice. Gallerists often provide museums with access to artists and collectors and with the in-depth information needed to organize museum exhibitions. When this synergy works well, it’s a symbiotic, win-win relationship. But curators working for dealers is something else entirely—dicey at best, improper at worst.

The multitalented Elderfield should think twice about working both sides of the street and make a clear choice before starting his Princeton gig on Feb. 1.